First systematic analysis of its kind even proposes reasons for the negative correlation.

More than 400 years before the birth of Jesus of Nazareth, Greek playwright Euripides wrote in his play Bellerophon, “Doth some one say that there be gods above? There are not; no, there are not. Let no fool, led by the old false fable, thus deceive you.”

Euripides was not an atheist and only used the word “fool” to provoke his audience. But, if you look at the studies conducted over the past century, you will find that those with religious beliefs will, on the whole, score lower on tests of intelligence. That is the conclusion of psychologists Miron Zuckerman and Jordan Silberman of the University of Rochester and Judith Hall of Northeastern University who have published a meta-analysis in Personality and Social Psychology Review.

This is the first systematic meta-analysis of 63 studies conducted between 1928 and 2012. In such an analysis, the authors look at each study’s sample size, quality of data collection, and analysis methods and then account for biases that may have inadvertently crept into the work. This data is next refracted through the prism of statistical theory to draw an overarching conclusion of what scholars in this field find. “Our conclusion,” as Zuckerman puts it, “is not new.”

“If you count the number of studies which find a positive correlation against those that find a negative correlation, you can draw the same conclusion because most studies find a negative correlation,” added Zuckerman. But that conclusion would be qualitative, because the studies’ methods vary. “What we have done is to draw that conclusion more accurately through statistical analysis.”

Setting the boundaries

Out of 63 studies, 53 showed a negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity, while 10 showed a positive one. Significant negative correlations were seen in 35 studies, whereas only two studies showed significant positive correlations.

The three psychologists have defined intelligence as the “ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience.” In short this is analytic intelligence, not the newly identified forms of creative and emotional intelligence, which are still subjects of dispute. In the various studies being examined, analytic intelligence has been measured in many different ways, including GPA (grade point average), UEE (university entrance exams), Mensa membership, and Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests, among others.

Religiosity is defined as involvement in some (or all) facets of religion, which includes belief in the supernatural, offering gifts to this supernatural, and performing rituals affirming their beliefs. Other signs of religiosity were measured using surveys, church attendance, and membership in religious organizations.

Among the thousands of people involved in these studies, the authors found that gender or education made no difference to the correlation between religiosity and intelligence; however, age mattered. The negative correlation between religiosity and intelligence was found to be the weakest among the pre-college population. That may be because of the uniqueness of the college experience, where most teenagers leave home for the first time, get exposed to new ideas, and are given a higher degree of freedom to act on them. Instead, in pre-college years, religious beliefs may largely reflect those of the family.

The gifted, the atheists

Is there a chance that higher intelligence makes people less religious? Two sets of large-scale studies tried to answer this question.

The first are based on the Terman cohort of the gifted, started in 1921 by Lewis Terman, a psychologist at Stanford University. (The cohort is still being followed.) In the study, Terman recruited more than 1,500 children whose IQ exceeded 135 at the age of 10. Two studies used this data, one conducted by Robin Sears at Columbia University in 1995 and the other by Michael McCullough at the University of Miami in 2005, and they found that “Termites,” as the gifted are called, were less religious when compared to the general public.

What makes these results remarkable is not just that these gifted folks were less religious, something that is seen among elite scientists as well, but that 60 percent of the Termites reported receiving “very strict” or “considerable” religious training while 33 percent received little training. Thus, almost all of the gifted Termites grew up to be less religious.

The second set of studies is based on students of New York’s Hunter College Elementary School for the intellectually gifted. This school selects its students based on a test given at a young age. To study their religiosity, graduates of this school were queried when they were between the ages of 38 and 50. They all had IQs that exceeded 140, and the study found that only 16 percent of them derived personal satisfaction from religion (about the same number as the Termites).

So while the Hunter study did not control for factors such as socioeconomic status or occupation, it did find that high intelligence at a young age preceded lower belief in religion many years later.

Other studies on the topic have been ambiguous. A 2009 study, led by Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster, compared religious beliefs and average national IQs of 137 countries. In their sample, only 23 countries had more than 20 percent atheists, which constituted, according to Lynn, "virtually all higher IQ countries." The positive correlation between intelligence and atheism was a strong one, but the study came under criticism from Gordon Lynch of Birkbeck College, because it did not account for complex social, economical, and historical factors.

Enlarge/ The relationship between countries' belief in a god and national average IQ.

It’s the beliefs, stupid

Overall, Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall conclude that, according to their meta-analysis, there is little doubt a significant negative correlation exists (i.e. people who are more religious score worse on varying measures of intelligence). The correlation is more negative when religiosity measures beliefs rather than behavior. That may be because religious behavior may be used to help someone appear to be part of a group even though they may not believe in the supernatural.

So why do more intelligent people appear to be less religious? There are three possible explanations. One possibility is that more intelligent people are less likely to conform and, thus, are more likely to resist religious dogma. A 1992 meta-analysis of seven studies found that intelligent people may be more likely to become atheists when they live in religious societies, because intelligent people tend to be nonconformists.

The most common explanation is that intelligent people don’t like to accept any beliefs that are not subject to empirical tests or logical reasoning. Zuckerman writes in the review that intelligent people may think more analytically, which is “controlled, systematic, and slow”, as opposed to intuitively, which is “heuristic-based, mostly non-conscious, and fast." That analytical thinking leads to lower religiosity.

The final explanation is that intelligence provides whatever functions religion does for believers. There are four such functions as proposed by Zuckerman, Silberman, and Hall.

First, religion provides people a sense of control. This was demonstrated in a series of studies conducted between 2008 and 2010, which showed that threatening volunteers’ sense of personal control increased their belief in God. This may be because people believe that God makes the world more predictable and thus less threatening. Much like believing in God, higher intelligence has been shown to grant people more “self-efficacy,” which is the belief in one’s ability to achieve goals. So, if intelligent people have more control, then perhaps they don’t need religion in the same way that others do.

Second, religion provides self-regulation. In a 2009 study, it was shown that religion was associated with better well-being. This was interpreted as an indication that religious people were more disciplined in pursuing goals and deferring small rewards for large ones. Separately, a 2008 meta-analysis noted that intelligent people were less impulsive. Delayed gratification may require better working memory, which intelligent people have. So, just like before, intelligence is acting as a substitute for religion, helping people delay gratification without needing divine interventions.

Third, religion provides self-enhancement. A 1997 meta-analysis compared the intrinsically religious, who privately believe in the supernatural, to the extrinsically religious, where people are merely part of a religious group without believing in God. The intrinsically religious felt better about themselves than the general public. Similarly, intelligent people have been shown to have a sense of higher self-worth. Again, intelligence may be providing something that religion does.

Last, and possibly the most intriguing, is that religion provides attachment. Religious people often claim to have a personal relationship with God. They use God as an “anchor” when faced with the loss of a loved one or a broken relationship. Turns out intelligent people find their “anchor” in people by building relationships. Studies have found that those who score highly on measures of intelligence are more likely to be married and less likely to get divorced. Thus, intelligent people have less need to seek religion as a substitute for companionship.

Give me the caveats

This meta-analysis only targets analytic intelligence, which surely is not the full measure of human intelligence despite the ongoing debate about how to define the rest of it. Also, although the review encompasses all studies conducted from 1928 to 2012, it only does so for studies written in the English language (two foreign language studies were considered only because a translation was available). The authors believe there are similar studies conducted in Japan and Latin America, but they did not have the time or resources to include them.

Zuckerman also warns that, despite there being thousands of participants overall, ranging among all ages, almost all of them belong to Western society. More than 87 percent of the participants were from the US, the UK, and Canada. So after controlling for other factors, they can only confidently show strong negative correlation between intelligence and religiosity among American Protestants. For Catholicism and Judaism, the correlation may be less negative.

There are some complications to the explanations too. For example, the non-conformist theory of atheism cannot apply to societies where the majority are atheists, such as Scandinavian countries. The possible explanations are also currently just that—possible. They need to be empirically studied.

Finally, not all studies reviewed are of equal quality, and some of them have been criticized by other researchers. But that is exactly why meta-analyses are performed. They help overcome limitations of sample size, poor data, and questionable analyses of individual studies.

As always, the word “correlation” is important. It hasn’t been shown that higher intelligence causes someone to be less religious. So, it wouldn’t be right to call someone a dimwit just because of their religious beliefs. Unless, of course, you are an ancient playwright looking to provoke your audience.

1602 Reader Comments

I just want to reiterate that any so-called atheist who worships Libertarianism/Objectivism is as irrational as a Jehovah's Witness.The word of Ayn Rand is not infallible, my credulous friends!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would aim to be a canny bastard -- always looking out for number one, doing whatever I could to advance my material prospects, while attempting to judge my probability of getting caught in a serious crime, and using that judgment to plan my course of action.

In fact, I don't see how any other course of action would be rational for an atheist.

You sound like an asshole.

You also fall into the trap of thinking that morals can only come from religion. Morals come from your family, community, and society. Atheists aren't immoral assholes because they don't believe in god. Immoral assholes exist in every group of people, religious or non.

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe?This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The last century is filled with carnage from the futile mob....

Let me pass the mic to Stanley Kubrick, who said it better than I ever could:

"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death -however mutable man may be able to make them- our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe? This is the fundamental. (Sorry, but there is no way out of this)This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The carnage of the last century from futile ideologies of the Nazis and Communists should give pause.Tell how smart you are.... But are you futile?

Hitler was a Christian who said he was doing "Gods work". But it should be said that he or his regime were not really about religion. What about the carnage that has been committed in the name of religion? in Africa, South America, Asia...

Stalin, it seems, was an atheist. But I don't really see how that is relevant, as the atrocities he did were not done in the name of atheism.

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe? This is the fundamental. (Sorry, but there is no way out of this)This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The carnage of the last century from futile ideologies of the Nazis and Communists should give pause.Tell how smart you are.... But are you futile?

Hitler was a Christian who said he was doing "Gods work". But it should be said that he or his regime were not really about religion. What about the carnage that has been committed in the name of religion? in Africa, South America, Asia...

Stalin, it seems, was an atheist. But I don't really see how that is relevant, as the atrocities he did were not done in the name of atheism.

Not to mention more murders take place in the religious US than many less religious countries. Hell is not an effective deterrent to murderers. A good educational system and a prosperous country will always be the better deterrent.

Sure, we have evidence that the places described in the Bible existed. We even have proof that some of the people mentioned in the Bible existed. Yes, there is some proof that Jesus existed. But there is no proof to the claim that he was son of God.

There's little evidence he (Jesus) even claimed such -- and especially not in the "Jesus as Diety" sense that expression is usually presumed to mean today. (And that fact is still recorded in our very language by the expression "to make an iota of difference", which originated in the 4th Century debate (in Greek, the addition of an 'iota' to the word homoousios makes homoiousios.) over whether Jesus was similar to, or the same as, God)

The Bible is not a science or a history text. It is a text of law. It is a text of moral teachings.

At this point I should point out that the "moral teachings" include stuff like wives submitting to their husbands, beating slaves (even Jesus talked about this), taking sex-slaves, condoning genocide...

But I guess I'm just "intrepeting it wrong". What I should do is to pick and choose the suitable parts, and discard the rest.

I just want to reiterate that any so-called atheist who worships Libertarianism/Objectivism is as irrational as a Jehovah's Witness.The word of Ayn Rand is not infallible, my credulous friends!

I am not an atheist, but if I were, I think I would aim to be a canny bastard -- always looking out for number one, doing whatever I could to advance my material prospects, while attempting to judge my probability of getting caught in a serious crime, and using that judgment to plan my course of action.

In fact, I don't see how any other course of action would be rational for an atheist.

Like I said earlier: Do Christians do good things and refrain from bad things because they are afraid of punishment in afterlife (eternity in hell) and they desire a reward in afterlife (eternity in paradise)? How exactly is that motive different from behaving in identical manner out of fear or punishment in this life, and for a desire of reward, in this life?

And like I said, I behave in good ways, and I do so without fear of god, or desire of eternity in paradise. And yes, I have plenty of opportunities to do bad things that would benefit me, without risk of getting caught. But I don't do those things. I don't need a Bible or some other holy book to tell me what is right or wrong.

Stalin, it seems, was an atheist. But I don't really see how that is relevant, as the atrocities he did were not done in the name of atheism.

Anti-theism, actually. In fact, generally speaking, more atrocities have been committed against the religious than by them. But it's all utterly irrelevant to the fact that group A wanted to be assholes to group B and religion or the freedom from happened to be a handy way to get people who otherwise might balk on board. It's othering at its finest and has been quite well displayed in this thread.

I'm of the opinion that if a person feels the need to crow about how superior their way is to all other ways, they probably have some doubts that their way really is.

Stalin, it seems, was an atheist. But I don't really see how that is relevant, as the atrocities he did were not done in the name of atheism.

Anti-theism, actually. In fact, generally speaking, more atrocities have been committed against the religious than by them.

Really? I mean, REALLY? Slavery, forced conversions, inquisition, crusades... And need I remind you that large part of the violence and persecution religious people have experienced have been done by other religious people, in name of some other religion.

When looking at various "ideologies" out there, atheism is probably the one with the cleanest track-record.

I went through the engineering department in my university and there was absolutely no brainwashing or indoctrination regarding anything religious in my courses. My friends were mostly Christians, although there were a couple atheists, but these had no problem with me believing what I did, so peer pressure certainly didn't change my views. We recognized that what we both believed were beliefs that could not be proven. We did debate them on occasion, but in general, it wasn't difficult to find enough support for my point of view that strengthened rather than weakened my faith. I did however learn critical thinking skills and massively improved my logical abilities.

It is these developed skills that have led me, and many, many others to critically study the Bible and what it's founded on, and I've been convinced that its primarily a human book that is full of contradictions that cannot and should not be reconciled. While I haven't become an atheist, I certainly not longer believe the Bible infallible.

As such, I have trouble believing that indoctrination has any significant effect on the beliefs of students, but that the critical thinking skills they learn certainly do. If it was only indoctrination, then we should see them coming back to the church in droves after college as surely a few sermons and chats with convinced religious people who care about them would re-indoctrinate them with the religious viewpoint they rejected.

During the lifetime of the Soviet Union, Atheism was indoctrinated as part of the official Communist Party view of reality and other viewpoints were suppressed. This went on from 1917 to 1987, a period of 2 generations. Clearly some genuine Christian belief was not entirely suppressed during this period, though most church buildings were destroyed, schools were forced to teach Marxism-Lenninism as part of the curriculum and anyone who admitted to being Christian risked the labour camps at worst and lost any opportunity for promotion or career advancement at best.

Orthodox Christian adherence in Russia is now estimated at 83%, with presumably a smaller number of regular and highly committed Church attenders and this larger number representing those with some nominal sense of affiliation and belief. There are also sizeable Protestant and Catholic Churches present. So it either appears that the 70 year history of Atheist indoctrination and suppression of other religions had little effect on the beliefs of Russians compared to other countries with a similar religious profile in 1917, or if it did, that after the collapse of communism, Russians felt the religious teachings of communism were as bankrupt as it's moral, political and economic teachings and converted to Christianity as this was seen as a rational choice or offering better hope or some combination of these.

Ethnicity/Nations comes second after religion and after that a whole bunch of silly reasons. Look into history and there is only one lesson- its just not worth for both sides. Price is too high and valuable lifes wasted. Will it stop? I believe educating people to reason better could help to an extent, if not atleast improve peoples quality of life, and humanity. Peace also means less money wasted on security and more money for better living.

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.” Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. (I Corinthians 1:18-25 NKJV)

Like I said earlier: Do Christians do good things and refrain from bad things because they are afraid of punishment in afterlife (eternity in hell) and they desire a reward in afterlife (eternity in paradise)? How exactly is that motive different from behaving in identical manner out of fear or punishment in this life, and for a desire of reward, in this life?

And like I said, I behave in good ways, and I do so without fear of god, or desire of eternity in paradise. And yes, I have plenty of opportunities to do bad things that would benefit me, without risk of getting caught. But I don't do those things. I don't need a Bible or some other holy book to tell me what is right or wrong.

Not all Christians believe in Hell as generally conceived. I for one don't. I also don't try to increase the good things and attempt to reduce the bad things I do I do out of the patronising and childish carrot/stick motivation methodology described, but by allowing my attitudes about what I consider I want and do and don't want and don't do to be changed to align more closely with what I know is good and evil. As to Heaven, no-one ever earned their place there by good works if St Paul is to be understood. That's a matter of God's grace and our faith. Heaven is about relationship with God, Hell is about what we create all too readily for ourselves if out of relationship due to our own pride and arrogance. God isn't forcing his company upon those who want none of it.

The assumed origins and rationale of morality by Atheism (to do with evolutionary propagation and survival of personal, family or like genes in that order) also creates an incentive for Atheists who talk the moral talk but don't walk the moral walk, whereas the assumption of personal accountability beyond the grave tends to counterbalance this natural human hypocritical tendency.

The Bible is not a science or a history text. It is a text of law. It is a text of moral teachings.

At this point I should point out that the "moral teachings" include stuff like wives submitting to their husbands, beating slaves (even Jesus talked about this), taking sex-slaves, condoning genocide...

But I guess I'm just "intrepeting it wrong". What I should do is to pick and choose the suitable parts, and discard the rest.

Indeed you are interpreting it wrong by picking the parts which suit your thesis, quoting these outside any sense or understanding of the historical context and ignoring the rest.

The Bible is not a science or a history text. It is a text of law. It is a text of moral teachings.

At this point I should point out that the "moral teachings" include stuff like wives submitting to their husbands, beating slaves (even Jesus talked about this), taking sex-slaves, condoning genocide...

But I guess I'm just "intrepeting it wrong". What I should do is to pick and choose the suitable parts, and discard the rest.

Indeed you are interpreting it wrong by picking the parts which suit your thesis, quoting these outside any sense or understanding of the historical context and ignoring the rest.

So, are the teachings in the Bible only relevant to the time and place they were written in? If that is the case, why are we using it as a moral compass today? And in any case: what does it tell about God, when he tells his followers to massacre other people, while telling them that they can take the virgins as sex-slaves? Or that raped women and obstinate teens should be stoned to death? Is that a god worthy of worship?

Like it or not, those are as much a part of the Bible as the feel-good stuff are. When Christians quote the "nice parts", why can't we accuse them of "picking the parts that suit their thesis, while ignoring the rest"?

Unlike Christians, I will not pick the nice parts from the Bible, and judge it based on those and those alone. I will look at it as a whole, and that includes the sadistic and savage parts as well. There's a lot of good stuff in the Bible. And there's lots of horrible stuff there as well.

Quote:

The assumed origins and rationale of morality by Atheism (to do with evolutionary propagation and survival of personal, family or like genes in that order) also creates an incentive for Atheists who talk the moral talk but don't walk the moral walk, whereas the assumption of personal accountability beyond the grave tends to counterbalance this natural human hypocritical tendency.

Does morality have to be outsourced to a book? My morality has been formed by my personal feelings and the society around me. I have not outsourced my morality to a book. When I see my fellow man in distress, I will help them. I do not need a book to tell me that I should do so. Morality grows from empathy, and empathy is not reliant on religion.

And as Wikipedia quotes a study:

"In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies,".

Maybe people behave in immoral ways because they think that their belief in God will protect them in the afterlife?

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe? This is the fundamental. (Sorry, but there is no way out of this)This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The carnage of the last century from futile ideologies of the Nazis and Communists should give pause.Tell how smart you are.... But are you futile?

Hitler was a Christian who said he was doing "Gods work". But it should be said that he or his regime were not really about religion. What about the carnage that has been committed in the name of religion? in Africa, South America, Asia...

Stalin, it seems, was an atheist. But I don't really see how that is relevant, as the atrocities he did were not done in the name of atheism.

Both Stalin and Pol Pot were Atheists and I don't see how this isn't relevant unless and until Hitler's wrongful claim to be Christian is rejected. Hitler was clearly a Social Darwinist ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism ) , influenced here much more by atheist rationale than New Testament teachings. His use of pagan mythology and symbolism in the Nazi movement further indicates Hitler's private views should be classified Pagan or Atheist, further evidenced by Albert Speer's comments on Hitler's private views: Speer wrote that Hitler would say: "You see it's been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn't we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good?" (Speer, Albert (1971). Inside the Third Reich. Trans. Richard Winston, Clara Winston, Eugene Davidson. New York: Macmillan) . ( quoted from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious ... olf_Hitler )

It seems Hitler didn't rate his chances of turning most Germans against Christianity as a nominal affiliation. To him, that didn't matter so much to start with (with the above quote indicating regret about this later) , and it explains the line he took. Hitler obviously wasn't genuine about a Christian religion of God's love for all people started by a Jewish Jesus, given his absolute hatred for and determination to exterminate the Jews, so he clearly intended to recast an entirely new religion, as a violent, hate-filled, nationalist and racist distortion in order to suit his agenda and manipulate the gullible. Pagan and Christian imagery would help decorate this new religion, but it was a combination of Social Darwinism (a branch of Athiest moral philosophy with a narrower view of genes considered as worth propagating than held by humanism) and German nationalism at heart.

Atrocities done by whoever on the claimed basis of whichever ideology have tended to be about selfish political power anyway. Religion of whatever kinds including Christianity and atheism, becomes a costume to be changed by the psychopathic, murderous and ambitious dictator at will.

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe? This is the fundamental. (Sorry, but there is no way out of this)This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The carnage of the last century from futile ideologies of the Nazis and Communists should give pause.Tell how smart you are.... But are you futile?

Hehehe.. Nazis. Who would ever guess it would come down to Hitler. Believers bought into Hitler's plans, in spades. Believers have been killing non-believers and differently-believers for millennia. Is that not futile?

We agree that people have the problem. I don't want any group endowed with some higher authority dictating the terms for me, either a theocracy or "animal farm pigs." There is no difference between the pig and the human.... Isn't John Lennon's song Imagine all about a leftist utopia? The very first words of the song prostylitize the futility of life. But he never mentions, it is the animal farm pigs managing his futile utopia. Big government is pig government. Limited is best.

There are believers that buy into the American left, but I say they should be avoiding futility and not standing with it because left is fundamentally futile and inferior. The theme of avoiding futility is a huge theme of the Bible. Leftist leadership seeks to enrich itself by growing its redistribution business. Ever pointing to the failure of the individual (who is unmotivated because life is futile) to grow the redistribution business, that they can then manage. Take from each according to his effort and give to each according to his vote.... Simply a business model, but inferior. Both hands institutionalize the futility of effort. Let us pray that God will thwart the futile utopia that no mob follow.

As another policy impact, I'm going to want a gun to protect myself against futile believers.

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe?This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The last century is filled with carnage from the futile mob....

Let me pass the mic to Stanley Kubrick, who said it better than I ever could:

"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death -however mutable man may be able to make them- our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."

Utopia! This translates to a kind of futile theocracy controlled by a futile prosytizing elite that institutionalizes the futility of effort with their redistribution business! We must supply olur own light! And if we do, you must not redistribute the fruit of our efforts.

Here is the fundamental question: Do you want me (and a mob I convince to agree with me) to believe that life is futile in the universe?This futile agreement touches (negatively I might add) personality, politics and policy.The last century is filled with carnage from the futile mob....

Let me pass the mic to Stanley Kubrick, who said it better than I ever could:

"The most terrifying fact about the universe is not that it is hostile but that it is indifferent; but if we can come to terms with this indifference and accept the challenges of life within the boundaries of death -however mutable man may be able to make them- our existence as a species can have genuine meaning and fulfillment. However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light."

Utopia! This translates to a kind of futile theocracy controlled by a futile prosytizing elite that institutionalizes the futility of effort with their redistribution business! We must supply olur own light! And if we do, you must not redistribute the fruit of our efforts.

people have been killed, tortured and receiving active/passive aggressiveness in the name of religion all over the world. Its still happening as I comment. Period.

And the exact same shit would take place in the name of something else if it wasn't religion. Do you really think the crusades were any more about religion than Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction?

I am not a religious person, I have no dog in this fight. But to think that war and violence have ever been about anything but power is folly. Do not lay those deaths in the feet of religion, communism, or whatever ideal or cause the leaders have used to sell their agenda to the masses.

i have two large problems in understanding why anyone would believe in a god (depending on the definition of course - but i'm referring to the common "benevolent, omnipotent creator of all" type)

1) a being that's both benevolent and omnipotent is by definition impossible in a reality where any suffering existsas far as i see, claiming the existence of such a being requires either claiming that no suffering exists, or the inability to understand the concept of benevolence and/or omnipotence

2) the creation part... nobody knows how exactly this universe came to be - the big bang theory only explains the time a few moments after the facti'm quite ok with not knowing - i'm curious about it, but i've never heard any compelling explanationsome try to "explain" it with a creator, but, that doesn't explain anything; it's a turtles-all-the-way-down problemthe problem of "how did the universe come to be" is completely synonymous to "how did god come to be" - any speculation to the answer of either one can just as well be used for the other, hence the god part is an unnecessary complication with no basis(*) and should be excluded by occam's razor

(*) i suspect some might cough at the "no basis" part and claim that the wonder that is our reality would require an intelligent designer, but wouldn't that designer need to be extremely complex itself (probably more so than the universe) ? so how could that complex designer exist without another one to design it (turtles...) ?

i don't have a problem with people believing extremely unlikely things based on only anecdotal evidence or mere observation based speculation (i'm sure i have some weird assumptions that are likely untrue), but those two things seem to me to be defying all logic

the way i see it, there need not be any evidence of non-existence of god; but that god (of this definition) can be difinitively disproved by simple logical deduction

people have been killed, tortured and receiving active/passive aggressiveness in the name of religion all over the world. Its still happening as I comment. Period.

And the exact same shit would take place in the name of something else if it wasn't religion. Do you really think the crusades were any more about religion than Iraq was about weapons of mass destruction?

I am not a religious person, I have no dog in this fight. But to think that war and violence have ever been about anything but power is folly. Do not lay those deaths in the feet of religion, communism, or whatever ideal or cause the leaders have used to sell their agenda to the masses.

I agree completely. Religion is, as often as not, a red herring, an excuse palpable to the masses. If religion ceased to exist, it would be something else. The threat of the royals and the west fueled massive violence in the Soviet Union. People accepted atrocities because there was a valid "other". Religion is just a different path to the same goal for many people who seek power.

Furthermore, I wonder how many people here are feeling slightly superior to those who believe. How they can assume they are smarter than anyone who believes and who will gladly point the finger at religion as a reason without any critical thought. I then wonder how many of them are aware precisely how similar they are to the worst sort of religious zealots who push God at every opportunity, view themselves as superior to non-believers, and point the finger a non-belief without any sort of critical thought.

Take, for example, the study that correlated religion and murder, teen pregnancy and abortion. I believe it was Janne who introduced that. Many people may look at that and say "See! Religion causes all these bad behaviors!" Me, I think about whether or not the study was controlled for income or any other factor. Poorer areas tend to be more religious. They also tend to have more alcoholism, more crime, more unprotected sex and yes, more abortion. Perhaps rather than presenting such a study as an example that religion is bad, it's more an example of why poverty is bad.

I was, at one point in my life, a triple Varsity athlete. I was also a complete nerd, burying my head in books and video games whenever I had the chance. One thing I learned early on: as much as the stereotypical "jocks" would judge people based on athletic prowess, and would talk shit about anyone who lacked it, the geeks would similarly rip on all the "dumb jocks" and judged them just as harshly. People like to feel that the things that they excel at are more important. They like to feel special and better. And for a while, this recognition that everyone did it made me feel extra observant...which made me feel superior, until I recognized it as just another part of that same impetus.

Long story short, maybe before looking down your noses, some critical thinking about why you feel the need to do so, and how they're doing the same to you, for different reasons, will cause you to wonder why you think you're better.

Yes Kassad, the exact shit 'll happen(for resourses like water, food, security, rights). Countries has been going to war. Eg: to expand their area to accommodate more people or to hopefully find useful resourse from the prospective area.

now there isn't many war between countries taking place because of active diplomacy between nations. But at ethnic/individual levels war is still going on more or less the same level. It happens as a result of one group trying to control a resourse in almost all cases. Another example is the side effect of globalisation. America is good for university research and technology development. But human resourse and cost advantage is at India and China. There needs to be a balance. But there is not much and as a result there is cost advantage at one place and research advantage in another place.

hopefully this shit will all stop one day(not world's end i really hope), no doubt i wont be alive to see it, not without extending life

internet could serve as a platform for people to communicate freely ultimately making everyone closer and causing lines to disappear that segregate people in name of religion, language, ethnicity, nationality making world governments having powers comparable to what absolute-power kings/queens have become in a democractic nation. Thats why it shouldn't be censored

or something more awesome than internet needs to happen! Some way that could help convey directly to each other's conscience exactly what one intend maybe. It could save time for speech/write. It'd change the world

What in the world leads you to conclude that I've never been to college? I have (and I graduated), and that's what my observations are based on. The condescension never stops. Once again strengthening my conclusions.

I find that highly unlikely. The primary focus of higher education is to learn and to expand your mind. You do not seem to have progressed much in these areas.

Operative Alex's long story short is good thinking. I've been putting myself in other peoples shoes(shoe=view) for last 3-4 months effectively before i say or do something important that could affect them too and the result was better(no hostility). But it look be making a serious effort for nearly a year to correctly analyse how one would think when faced with a situation. Being genuine helps a long way. One never know when earth under our feet is gone and that's when we'll pay price for our own actions.

Religion is, as often as not, a red herring, an excuse palpable to the masses. If religion ceased to exist, it would be something else.

I wonder why religion appears to be so useful in this regard?

IMO,in today's age of literacy, religion provides a common set of ingrained beliefs in a higher power that can be exploited by appealing to this higher power or their books. However, should someone have more time, they can use the same techniques religions use to make themselves that higher power, with even more devastating results (see Hitler youth).

Historically, many religious leaders were taken at their word by the illiterate masses. This made them much easier to manipulate into joining things like the crusades.

I believe God was invented to cause fear to control chaos in primitive societies so theft, robbery, etc could be controlled to make things fair. But then religion and many gods were formed as this idea spread, much like mobile phone makers pick an idea and implementing it differently for better or worse, and chaos presented itself in another form. I must dig chaos theory. Suddenly it makes some sense in my head regarding many things.

People who are intelligent enough don't discard the supernatural "a priori" (i.e. before they even begin).

The ultimate problem with atheism is, how does someone prove that something or somebody (here, God) doesn't exist?

Problem is, atheism doesn't require proof of non-existence of God (or gods), nor does it rest on the positive assertion that God doesn't exist. As someone who identifies as an atheist, I would consider the assertion that "God doesn't exist" to be no more intellectually-defensible than the assertion that "God does exist".

In the most basic, literal sense, "atheism" simply indicates the ABSENCE of belief in a god or gods. Abstaining from belief in something is clearly not the same as having a positive belief that it doesn't exist. Being unconvinced of a claim is not the same thing as steadfastly disbelieving it, no matter how hard religious apologists try to pretend otherwise.

Quote:

Maybe they just haven't been looking at the right places. Maybe they have met God, but they didn't recognize him.

"To force man to choose the one, true God - from a multitude of false ones - strikes me as a poor way to run any organization, much less one the size of the universe." -Robert A. Heinlein

Quote:

If intelligence only means "thinking only in terms of what one can scientifically measure"

Intelligence also means the ability to grasp & practice basic intellectual concepts. Concepts such as the "null hypothesis" which, simply stated, says that claims unsupported by evidence should assumed to be false (such as claims regarding the supernatural).

Quote:

that kind of thinking excludes the supernatural, and as such, has no chance of finding it.

I would be very interested to hear how you think that methodological naturalism is supposed to investigate and learn about something that is, by definition, not natural...

Quote:

To me, intelligence includes the capability to acknowledge someone's own limitations.

Please. I would practically guarantee you that the proponents of a secular, scientific worldview understand the limitations of those intellectual tools MUCH better than the religious apologists who pretend that science should also address philosophical & metaphysical questions.

Religion is, as often as not, a red herring, an excuse palpable to the masses. If religion ceased to exist, it would be something else.

I wonder why religion appears to be so useful in this regard?

A confluence of things. The sense of superiority that your belief is "right" is a powerful force. Fear of the other is another easily exploitable base condition of humanity. Superstition and ingrained habits round out the list. Religion isn't the sole way these things come together, but is merely a common one. I always think back to 1984 and the two minute hate. It doesn't matter who the "other" is. It matters that there is one. Religion is exploitable. That's different than saying that religion is the root cause.

That same hubris of the non-religious, that they are "better" than those who believe, can result in the same outcome. Blaming Christianity for the crimes of Hitler is like blaming the Romanovs for the horrors committed during the rise of Stalin. Just because someone points to something as the reason doesn't mean that's the actual reason.